Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
I have noticed a trend with models not giving credits or posting a copyright to photographers when they post their photos. Does anyone think it is reason enough to include a watermark?
Model
Josie Nutter
Posts: 5865
Seattle, Washington, US
It's not just models-- many photographers here don't credit models or makeup artists, too (maybe sometimes due to some sort of weird territorial/not wanting to share thing).
I think watermarks on the web are a good idea in general. Keeps people from using your stuff without permission (or at least tends to decrease the amount of that sort of thing).
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
markcomp wrote:
I have noticed a trend with models not giving credits or posting a copyright to photographers when they post their photos. Does anyone think it is reason enough to include a watermark? No. C'mon now- you include a watermark- I'm not posting your shot.
I'll give you credit- I give everyone credit...however, MM frequently wipes out the credits and we don't even know about it.
Send a message- stop whining about it.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
Daniela V wrote:
No. C'mon now- you include a watermark- I'm not posting your shot.
I'll give you credit- I give everyone credit...however, MM frequently wipes out the credits and we don't even know about it.
Send a message- stop whining about it. Just so that I am aware, have all questions on MM become whines?
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
markcomp wrote:
Just so that I am aware, have all questions on MM become whines? No they haven't. But this question has been asked plenty of times before.
If you're not given credit, message the model about it.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
Josie Nutter wrote:
It's not just models-- many photographers here don't credit models or makeup artists, too (maybe sometimes due to some sort of weird territorial/not wanting to share thing).
I think watermarks on the web are a good idea in general. Keeps people from using your stuff without permission (or at least tends to decrease the amount of that sort of thing). That may be true of photographers but since they own the copyright I don't think it is the same.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
Daniela V wrote:
No they haven't. But this question has been asked plenty of times before.
If you're not given credit, message the model about it. When it has happened to me I have but if you notice my initial post I reference the fact that I see it all the time not just with me. So the question was put there more specifically for the copyright holder.
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
markcomp wrote:
When it has happened to me I have but if you notice my initial post I reference the fact that I see it all the time not just with me. So the question was put there more specifically for the copyright holder. and did you message any of the models about this?
Photographer
yani
Posts: 1041
Matawan, New Jersey, US
Blame Tyler. The pic uploding system is a pain in the ass.
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 13020
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
I just went back over my port and re-added all the model credits,
They used to be there but they had dissapeared along the way.
As noted by a previous poster MM periodically removes credits (not sure why)
So the model may have given you credit when she/he posted only to have MM remove it later.
I'm not a fan of marring my work with watermarks but to each his own.
Just message them and ask them to post credit.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
I have seen some watermarks that I think make the photo look more professional. Personally I don't like them though.
Sucks about the system deleting credits.
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
yani wrote:
Blame Tyler. The pic uploding system is a pain in the ass. that too
Model
Josie Nutter
Posts: 5865
Seattle, Washington, US
markcomp wrote:
That may be true of photographers but since they own the copyright I don't think it is the same. Sometimes. Copyright depends on what rights are given in the model release, no?
IMO, photos without watermarks are for "real world" use only. Images without markings online leave themselves open for theft, and/or attempted identity theft of the model / internet "roleplaying". All of which is very annoying. (More annoying than the marks in the first place, IMO.)
Model
DELETE ACCOUNT
Posts: 5517
Eškašem, Badakhshan, Afghanistan
 I have fully credited photographers, etc. from day one. At this website, I include credits when I upload and add the MM number to create a link to their portfolios here. When they are no longer displayed, their names are still read. I do not have time to keep reentering MM numbers, nor do I expect fellow MMers to waste their valuable time dealing with the malfunction. KJ www.kathays.com
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
KathyJean wrote:
I have fully credited photographers, etc. from day one. At this website, I include credits when I upload and add the MM number to create a link to their portfolios here. When they are no longer displayed, their names are still read. I do not have time to keep reentering MM numbers, nor do I expect fellow MMers to waste their valuable time dealing with the malfunction.
KJ
www.kathays.com Do you do yoga 24/7 or something? You're always so peppy and upbeat.
*not a slam- just asking*
Model
DELETE ACCOUNT
Posts: 5517
Eškašem, Badakhshan, Afghanistan
No, Daniela, I am doin' a little yogurt right now, though. Key Lime Pie I've never tried yoga, but I do think that commercial with Ellen DeGeneres musing about the argyle socks is funny. Oh, didja see the spot where she's talking with staff in preparation for her show - the raccoon as her makeup artist? ROF KJ
Photographer
oddproof photography
Posts: 155
Garwood, New Jersey, US
I do appreciate it when they do but not required. I wouldn't watermark their images because they are trying to promote themselves and not the photographer.
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
KathyJean wrote:
No, Daniela, I am doin' a little yogurt right now, though. Key Lime Pie
I've never tried yoga, but I do think that commercial with Ellen DeGeneres musing about the argyle socks is funny. Oh, didja see the spot where she's talking with staff in preparation for her show - the raccoon as her makeup artist? ROF
KJ I love when she asked the racoon if the eyeliner is to heavy. LMAO
Photographer
Mark Brummitt
Posts: 40527
Clarkston, Michigan, US
oddproof wrote:
I do appreciate it when they do but not required. I wouldn't watermark their images because they are trying to promote themselves and not the photographer. I have seen model releases that specify that any time the model posts the shots it must include the credits.
Photographer
CarlMaiorinoPhotography
Posts: 1078
New York, New York, US
Josie Nutter wrote:
Copyright depends on what rights are given in the model release, no? Correct, the answer is "No". The photographer holds the copyright to the images unless he is an employee of the company. What is granted in a model release is a license to use the image which is a completely different animal.
Model
Josie Nutter
Posts: 5865
Seattle, Washington, US
I'm not sure I quite believe you, but whatever. Regardless, any Model Mayhem member who specifically refuses to credit their collaborators here (especially if they are on MM themselves) is probably being an asshole on purpose.
Model
Chaya Phally
Posts: 7738
New York, New York, US
Josie Nutter wrote:
I'm not sure I quite believe you, but whatever. Regardless, any Model Mayhem member who specifically refuses to credit their collaborators here (especially if they are on MM themselves) is probably being an asshole on purpose. It would be awesome to see a lot of people get banned for not crediting. 
Model
TIFFANY A
Posts: 225
Maybe the person not putting any credit is just too lazy? I also find that when I take the time to put in everyones MM number into the credits they get wiped out. When this happens I don't feel like spending time doing it all over again.
It urks me sometimes as a photographer when I don't see my model or styling team mention who the photographer is, since I always credit everyone on my team.
Photographer
far away
Posts: 4326
Jackson, Alabama, US
markcomp wrote:
I have noticed a trend with models not giving credits or posting a copyright to photographers when they post their photos. Does anyone think it is reason enough to include a watermark? Yes. I'm totally with you on this, Mark.
I'm in the process of putting together a watermark to start using. I had one, but it ended up being too similar to another Michigan photog's watermark. We both are "RP" and coincidently ended up with nearly identical marks. He started using his before I did mine, which I'd never noticed until after I finally finished it (I was pissed! Lol...). So, unfortunately, I've gotta' start over.
Model
Josie Nutter
Posts: 5865
Seattle, Washington, US
Personally, I -do- give MY collaborators the benefit of the doubt.
I always post comments on photos with me in them that are not credited to me (something along the lines of "thanks for working with me on this image"), in the hopes that if someone is too busy or whatever, they will eventually come back to it.
Photographer
ForeverFotos
Posts: 6662
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Credit where credit is due... I always do and always will. If a model spends time in front of my camera making a great image, I think it's the least I can do to thank her/him for all that effort.
Model on..
Photographer
Michael DBA Expressions
Posts: 3732
Lynchburg, Virginia, US
Josie Nutter wrote:
I'm not sure I quite believe you, but whatever. Regardless, any Model Mayhem member who specifically refuses to credit their collaborators here (especially if they are on MM themselves) is probably being an asshole on purpose. Josie, Carl is right. The model release has nothing whatever to do with copyright and everything to do with permission to publish relative to individual's right to privacy.
The two areas of the law are completely unrelated. The copyright law is clear: absent a contract to the contrary, for example "work to hire" on the part of the photographer, the copyright belongs to said photographer. Absent a model release, the photographer will be limited in what he can do with the photos for fear of invading her privacy.
If either photographer or model is agrieved and sues the other, it would likely be the photographer suing the model because she used the images without permission under copyright law, or it would be the model suing the photographer because he used the images without permission thereby invading the model's privacy. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the model could NOT sue the photographer for copyright infringement, and the photographer could not sue the model for invasion of privacy.
And while one COULD write into a model release stipulations about who had rights under the copyright law, I have never seen such a model release in my 35 years of shooting.
Photographer
Mark J. Sebastian
Posts: 1530
San Jose, California, US
MM wiped out my credits, so its not anyones fault. In the begining, i added a giant "SEBASTIAN" watermark across my photos which started out as an inside joke. But my new photos have much more negetive space, so i have room to put my name and the models name (since we're equal partners within each photo) in a smaller, less intrusive font.
Photographer
Glen Berry
Posts: 2797
Huntington, West Virginia, US
Daniela V wrote:
No. C'mon now- you include a watermark- I'm not posting your shot. That leaves me slightly confused, because over half the images currently in your portfolio have a visible watermark on them.
Photographer
Glen Berry
Posts: 2797
Huntington, West Virginia, US
markcomp wrote:
I have noticed a trend with models not giving credits or posting a copyright to photographers when they post their photos. Does anyone think it is reason enough to include a watermark? I started putting visible watermarks on my internet images after I had trouble with several models messing up the credits. Either they would forget (and not heed polite reminders to fix it), or they would incorrectly claim co-copyright status. I even had one model that claimed my copyright for her own! With so many people unable to follow instructions, and especially after some models tried to claim partial or full copyright, I decided to visibly stamp all my images from then on.
I hated doing it at first. I thought it looked ugly. Now I'm used to it, and it doesn't bother me at all. Believe me, seeing some ignorant "model" claim she holds the copyright to my images looks far worse than seeing my copyright notice on the image. 
Here's another reason for photographers to stamp their internet-ready images: There are several model networking sites on the internet. Are you going to go to the trouble of checking that she credits you on all of them? What if you aren't a member of some of these other sites? Some of them only allow adding credits by entering member numbers (like Mayhem does). Under a system like that, a model can't give you a credit unless you are both members of that site.
I say put the copyright notice on the image. You never know where the image might turn up, and who might want to use the image for something. They might even want to hire you based on one of your images.
To be fair, if someone ever sees one of my photos and wants to hire the model in the photo, I would gladly pass on their contact info to the model in question. So, even if they are interested in contacting the model, it could still help having my copyright and website info printed on the photo.
take care,
Glen
Model
DOne
Posts: 6305
Seattle, Washington, US
I agree with many of the others here....Just email the model/photog/mua/whomever and let them know the credit was removed. I have always placed credits on the photos when I upload them....and to be honest with you since MM went down (pic uploader) again ... I havent checked to see if the credits are still there. I do know for a fact the credits have been wiped clean on more than once. When it has been brought to my attention I correct the issue... I don't have time to recheck every picture everyday (especially those days when MM's server is slow).
Meela
Photographer
Mr Maki
Posts: 633
Tallahassee, Florida, US
Daniela V wrote:
No. C'mon now- you include a watermark- I'm not posting your shot.
I'll give you credit- I give everyone credit...however, MM frequently wipes out the credits and we don't even know about it.
Send a message- stop whining about it. MM sure did wipe the servers.... I had to add Model Credits to 60 photos!!! Whew!
Model
Ryan6663
Posts: 900
New York, New York, US
think it just comes down to, to lazy to go get the persons MM number LOL
Model
Wynd Mulysa
Posts: 8619
Berkeley, California, US
markcomp wrote:
I have noticed a trend with models not giving credits or posting a copyright to photographers when they post their photos. Does anyone think it is reason enough to include a watermark? Yes.
I get kind of discouraged when photographers don't add my credit, too. I always give credit in my port. It's made very easy on this site.
On other sites, like MP, where you actually have to go back and edit the photo to add a credit, I don't add credit unless there is no watermark. In that case it makes it easier for me.
|
I have fully credited photographers, etc. from day one. At this website, I include credits when I upload and add the MM number to create a link to their portfolios here. When they are no longer displayed, their names are still read. I do not have time to keep reentering MM numbers, nor do I expect fellow MMers to waste their valuable time dealing with the malfunction. 
